Not NICE: call to exclude tobacco industry from smoking cessation talks
Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 8:54 I'm in Bristol this morning.
There's a meeting of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the city that will debate a proposal that tobacco companies should no longer be stakeholders in NICE's decision-making process.
It was news to me that the tobacco companies are stakeholders but it seems perfectly reasonable that they should be included.
After all, the tobacco industry is a legitimate business and it ought to be a legitimate stakeholder in any discussion about tobacco whether it be illicit trade, litter or smoking cessation.
The industry invests billions of pounds in harm reduction products including e-cigarettes so it would be crazy not to include them in discussions about smoking cessation.
Tobacco companies know better than anyone what works for their customers and what the consumer wants. Their knowledge and expertise should be invaluable but the likes of ASH and Smokefree South West are more interested in exclusion and political idealism.
BBC Radio Bristol and BBC Points West are covering the issue and I've just done an interview for BBC Radio Bristol. I'm also doing an interview for BBC Points West.
Update: On BBC Radio Bristol Fiona Andrews, CEO of Smokefree South West, said the Department of Health don't have direct meetings with the tobacco industry so why should NICE?
She's wrong. If I remember correctly, several tobacco companies had meetings with the DH about plain packaging, including Bristol-based Imperial Tobacco.
I'm surprised she didn't know that.
PS. If I was working for NICE I would include in the decision-making process not only the tobacco industry but also consumers and retailers.
Why not? If smoking cessation is your goal it makes sense to include several elements of the tobacco chain. That way you might better understand the consumer and what makes some people smoke and others quit.
It might also help you understand why some smoking cessation products work and others don't.
Update: I can't remember who it was (the BBC Radio Bristol presenter or Fiona Andrews) but someone said there might be a commercial conflict of interest if the tobacco industry was involved in discussions.
Duh! What about the pharmaceutical industry? The same argument could be made for them but I don't see ASH or Smokefree South West lobbying to have Big Pharma removed from discussions.
Reader Comments (3)
It's trendy and encouraged these days to employ bigotry, prejudice and social exclusion if the targeted group can be made unpopular enough for others to accept justification of that abuse.
Why should we expect these anti-business and anti-social T..... to care about consumers when their aim is to destroy industry via abuse of the consumer?
They're in this to ensure their jobs keep paying their fat wages. Commercial conflict? You bet. These smokerphobics' salaries, jobs, annual holidays, new cars and mortgages depend on smoker exclusion, scaremongering and abuse.
They are completely the wrong sort of people to be in any discussions on how to take forward the plan to criminalise legit adult consumers but then that's the plan so to achieve it of course they must exclude us.
I just wish the media would wake to the true intentions and motives of these people because they are serving the public, their readers, listeners and viewers very badly.
Excluding tobacco control is a means of denormalizing smoking and smokers. It is also means of collusion--a way of forming a new 'Big Pharma' cartel. You could fairly describe this exclusion and creating a new cartel as racketeering!
Precisely, Simon. Apart from smokers themselves, no-one else understands smokers as well as the tobacco industry does. But then, as has often been mentioned in the past, one wonders whether these frothing-at-the-mouth anti-smokers really do want smokers to give up. After all, if everyone did, there’d then be no need for a highly profitable Tobacco Control industry – and thus no lucrative jobs for anti-tobacco zealots within it, would there?